Table 1.
Recognition performance in Experiments 1 and 2.
| A. Mean recognition proportions | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | |||||||||
| STM | LTM | STM | LTM | |||||||
| Probe type | “Yes” | “Yes” | “Yes” (R/K/G) | “Yes” (R/K/G) | ||||||
| Related lure | .18 | .57 | .17 (.05/.05/.06) | .46 (.12/.18/.15) | ||||||
| Unrelated lure | .01 | .35 | .04 (.01/.01/.02) | .28 (.03/.13/.11) | ||||||
| Target | .92 | .69 | .88 (.51/.32/.03) | .57 (.23/.19/.12) | ||||||
| B. Measures of recognition performance adjusted for a shifting baseline (unrelated lure) false alarm rate | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | |||||||||
| STM | LTM | STM | LTM | |||||||
| M | SEM | M | SEM | p-value | M | SEM | M | SEM | p-value | |
| True recognition | ||||||||||
| Discriminability (Pr) | .90 | .02 | .34 | .04 | < .001 | .84 | .02 | .29 | .04 | < .001 |
| Item-specific memory sensitivity (d′) | 3.10 | .11 | .91 | .11 | < .001 | 2.71 | .10 | .78 | .13 | < .001 |
| False recognition | ||||||||||
| Discriminability (Pr) | .17 | .04 | .23 | .04 | .31 | .13 | .02 | .18 | .03 | .22 |
| Gist memory sensitivity (d′) | .78 | .14 | .62 | .11 | .39 | .61 | .10 | .52 | .09 | .49 |
Note: The signal detection measure d′ was used to estimate recognition sensitivity, following the recommendation of Seamon et al. (2002), who compared sensitivity measures in a DRM experiment and argued that d′ is superior to the nonparametric measure A′ for discriminating change in true recognition versus false recognition over time. The pattern of results reported above does not change if A′ is used.